Analysis
Search Cement News
Egyptian cement producers fight for ‘king’ coal
Written by Global Cement staff
07 May 2014
Egypt's cement producers have taken their fight to use coal to the opposition in recent weeks. Producers like Suez Cement and Titan have started pushing the benefits of using coal including its place as an international mainstay and highlighting the potential savings for the state.
In March 2014 the Minister of Trade and Industry Mounir Abdel Nour announced that cement companies could start using coal from September 2014. However, with pressure from environmental activists and even the Minister of Environment voicing disapproval for coal this seems to be a long way off. Fuel issues continue to bedevil Egyptian cement producers as reports emerged this week that gas supplies to 10 cement plants were cut. The plants, which represent 70% of the country's production base, have been forced to close temporarily. Egypt is one of the largest non-OPEC (Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) oil producers in Africa and the second largest dry natural gas producer on the continent.
The Egyptian government has been planning a reduction in the use of natural gas by industry. Yet the scale of the reduction has shifted. At first the Ministry of Petroleum intended to reduce supplies to cement plants by 35% in January and February 2014. Reportedly the price of cement then shot up by 30% in March 2014 to offset the rise in energy prices. Then the gas was cut completely, leading to the shutdowns.
In response Egyptian cement producers are investing in converting to using coal. This week Suez Cement announced a planned investment of US$40m to convert two of its four plants to use coal instead of natural gas subject to approval from the Ministry of Environment. Back in November 2013 Suez Cement announced similar plans to spend US$72.5m on converting its plants for coal. Similarly, Lafarge's preparations to use petcoke were also delayed by the ministry in February 2014.
Users of Egypt's gas supplies are caught between the reform of energy subsidies, a shortage in gas supplies and an increase in local demand. Industrial users like cement plants are stuck in a queue behind export markets and power plants. In addition international events such as the political instability in Ukraine might potentially rock the Egyptian gas market if Russian supplies were affected. The European markets would then start scrambling to secure their gas from other places such as Egypt.
In this situation, moving to the use of imported coal makes sense for cement producers. Yet groups like the 'Egyptians Against Coal' campaign argue that the issue is also about Egypt's sovereignty over its energy sources, not just pollution. Despite the optimism of the activists it seems unlikely that they can resist market pressures for long, especially with producers such as Suez Cement and the Arabian Cement Company announcing plans for increased alternative fuels substitution rates alongside their bigger plans for coal. Whether this is more than a sop remains to be seen.
Once dubbed 'King Coal' for its leading place in British industry before the second half of the 20th Century, coal is looking likely to take the crown as the fuel of choice in the Egyptian cement industry. How long it retains its crown though depends on the on-going competition between coal and gas use around the world.
Lafarge-Holcim merger - any impact on Africa?
Written by Global Cement staff & Andy Gboka, Exotix LLP
30 April 2014
Holcim released its first quarter results for 2014 this week and benefits of a merger seemed clear: both sales and profit were down. Net sales fell by 5.4% to Euro3.35bn and net income fell by 57.5% to Euro65.6m. However, Chief Financial Officer Thomas Aebischer was upbeat on meeting the regulatory requirements of any merger and the prospect of divestment opportunities.
This week we have a guest contributor - Andy Gboka, an analyst at Exotix LLP, a London-based broker specialised in Frontier markets – writing about the impact in Africa from the Lafarge-Holcim merger:
No change in Sub-Saharan Africa cement markets
Looking at (1) the location and size of the assets that both groups operate across the region but also (2) the expansion projects recently announced, we do not anticipate any upheaval in the competitive landscape, at least in the medium term.
Potential reshuffle of African assets
We identify Nigeria and Morocco as the main countries where the two companies are likely to reorganise their operations post-deal.
After the market excitement Lafarge / Holcim's price gains have averaged 9% since the announcement versus +8% the same day (04/04/14). We think it timely to discuss, from a competition angle, the likely impact on sector dynamics in Africa.
Starting with Sub-Saharan Africa where Lafarge and Holcim have been present for decades, the two groups have grown their output capability over time to reach a combined ~20.7Mt/yr. Holcim is a much smaller cement producer through its ~2.6Mt/yr in Ivory Coast, Guinea and Nigeria, whereas the French manufacturer is a regional leader with ~18.1Mt/yr capacity across 10 different countries. North African exposure paints a similar picture, as the Swiss company's installed capacity is ~9.6Mt/yr versus ~21.6Mt/yr for Lafarge (including their respective shareholdings in Lafarge Cement Egypt).
Although we do not believe the proposed merger will significantly alter Africa's competitive environment, business reorganisation is likely in:
(1) Nigeria. LafargeHolcim would control more than ~70% of the United Cement Company of Nigeria Ltd (UNICEM, 2.5Mt/yr in Calabar) which, in our view, is a suitable context for minorities' buyout.
(2) Morocco. More than ~50% of the industry's production capacity is controlled by the two players, a situation that may lead to asset disposals after review by the local competition commission.
Beyond the corporate implications, this announcement also puts into perspective the multiples investors are willing to pay for companies operating in Africa. Indeed, for 2014/2015 financial year the enterprise multiple (enterprise value / earnings before depreciation and amortisation) and price-to-book ratio for the main stocks listed in Nigeria and Kenya average 10.3x and 2.9x respectively, vs. 8.4x and 1.3x for LafargeHolcim (Bloomberg). While demand growth prospects in the teen digits or margins above ~25% (especially in Nigeria) would support a premium for the former names, we think the extent of that premium is questionable.
The best illustration is Dangote Cement, whose market capitalisation stands at ~US$25bn for total capacity estimated at 50 – 55Mt/yr by the 2016 financial year, relatively high when compared to the expected ~US$55bn market capitalisation for LafargeHolcim with (1) 427Mt/yr cement capacity globally and (2) ~60% of its revenue from emerging markets. This underpins our cautious stance on the sector.
Source: Andy Gboka, analyst at Exotix LLP (London-Based broker specialised in Frontier markets).
Andy Gboka will be speaking at the forthcoming Global CemTrader Conference, taking place in London on 2 -3 June 2014.
Indian cement ahoy!
Written by Global Cement staff
23 April 2014
Zuari Cement's ground breaking of a new port-side packing terminal in Kochi, Kerala is the latest Indian cement news story with an eye on the sea. The Italcementi subsidiary's terminal won't be open until 2015 but the move shows that Indian producers are starting to tackle industry over-capacity through shipping lanes.
The Italcementi subsidiary holds two integrated cement plants and a grinding plant in Andhra Padesh and Tamil Nadu, two of India's biggest cement-producing states. In 2013 Italcementi reported that cement consumption fell for the first time in 10 years. Although Italcementi's cement and clinker sales rose by 1.6% in India in 2013, its revenue fell by 14% to Euro214m. Profit indicators like earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortisation (EBITDA) also fell. Targeting Kerala, one of the country's smallest cement producing states (0.6Mt/yr in 2013), makes sense.
Zuari Cement isn't the only Indian cement producer with its eye on shipping or on Kerala. At the end of March 2014, Gujarat producer Sanghi Industries announced plans to invest US$25m in ships and sea terminals. It plans to acquire six vessels in the next five years. It is also in the process of setting up terminals at Navlakhi port in Gujarat and at Mumbai port in Maharashtra.
Sanghi has stated that its aims are to find new markets, reduce fuel costs and increase its distribution networks. In an interview with Alok Sanghi, the director of Sanghi Cement, for a forthcoming issue of Global Cement Magazine, Sanghi revealed that Kerala is one of the four markets the producer focuses on within India (alongside Gujarat, Rajasthan and Maharashtra).
Neighbouring Pakistan is no stranger to exporting its cement around the world. Frequent complaints from east and south African press and cement producers attest to this. However, this week's story about plans to build the country's first 'dirty cargo' terminal at Port Qasim, Karachi marks a change from the normal narrative.
According to a Pakistan cement producer who Global Cement interviewed earlier in 2014, coal is the most common fuel used to fire cement kilns following a shift from gas in recent years. Subsequently coal prices rose, leading to higher cement prices in the country. A new terminal with the capacity to handle 12Mt/yr of coal (growing to 20Mt/yr in a second phase of the build) could certainly help cut input prices for the industry.
The producer also mentioned that most of the coal that Pakistan currently uses is imported from Indonesia and South Africa. So, indirectly, the South African coal industry appears to be making money helping to make Pakistan cement that eventually arrives back in South Africa to undercut local cement producers! They say that market always finds a way. Ships certainly help.
LafargeHolcim: everyone expects the Spanish acquisition
Written by Peter Edwards
16 April 2014
A lot has happened since the 4 April 2014 announcement that Lafarge and Holcim intend to become LafargeHolcim. There have been several related announcements from around the global cement industry this week, prompting some interesting discussion with respect to the future look of the industry.
Oyak Group, which operates a number of plants in Turkey, appears to be limbering up for LafargeHolcim-based acquisitions in the UK, the EU or Africa, with aims to become a regional player. Meanwhile, Lafarge has pulled out of talks regarding its proposed acquisition of the Cementos Portland Valderrivas (CPV) plant in Vallcarca, Spain, directly citing the merger as the reason for this. We have also seen Colombia's Cementos Argos purchase a grinding plant in French Guiana, which was jointly-owned by Lafarge and Holcim. Announced just a few days after the merger, this asset was presumably jettisoned in order to avoid future issues with local anti-monopoly authorities. Finally, ACC and Ambuja have announced that they would retain their separate identities in India after the merger.
This flurry of announcements is likely to be just the start of frenzied speculation as the competitors of Lafarge and Holcim work out what assets are most likely to be sold. So what about the multinationals, Cemex and HeidelbergCement?
Cemex certainly has cause for concern, weighed down by the debt that it took on in 2007 with the acquisition of Australia's Rinker. It is in a relatively weak position with respect to acquiring any LafargeHolcim divestments. Could it lose market share? HeidelbergCement, by contrast, has long extoled the virtues of its financial efficiency policies and its diverse and forward-looking geographical spread. It could snap up more strategic assets after the merger. While both of these multinationals will be wary of dealing with an enlarged competitor in LafargeHolcim, they have the opportunity to increase their market shares and both will move up one position in the global cement producer rankings.
It is likely to be the smaller players that have the most to gain from the shedding of LafargeHolcim's various assets, especially those that enjoy strong domestic markets and have cash at the ready. Oyak Group has already entered the ring but what if Nigeria's Dangote, Brazil's Votorantim, Colombia's Cementos Argos or Thailand's SCG go on a spending spree? Could one of these rise to become a new global cement multinational?
However, if we can expect a change anywhere it will be in Spain. Following reports in 2012 that Spanish cement production had crashed to its lowest levels since the 1960s jobs have been shed and profits have evaporated. In 2013 Holcim and Cemex agreed to combine all of their operations in Spain. Roughly, according to the Global Cement Directory 2014, cement production capacity in Spain breaks down as follows: CPV (23%), Cemex (18%), Lafarge (11%) and Holcim (10%). Letting the Cemex-Holcim deal happen, followed by the Lafarge-Holcim merger and the CPV Vallcarca purchase, would have led to a major headache for Spain's competition authorities, creating an entity with 43% production market share! Unsurprisingly the first casualty has been the CPV Vallcarca deal. Whatever happens, the next 18 months will be an interesting period for the global cement industry.
LafargeHolcim and the power of the mega-merger
Written by Global Cement staff
09 April 2014
The news that Holcim and Lafarge are planning a merger should come as no great surprise to long-term observers of the industry. Such mega-mergers have been periodically mooted over the decades and have already come to pass.
Lafarge took its present form through many acquisitions, but it was the mega-merger with Blue Circle Industries that brought it to pre-eminence. That deal was hard fought, rapidly becoming a hostile takeover after the then-CEO of Blue Circle, Richard Haythornthwaite, decided that the amount that the CEO of Lafarge, Bertrand Coulomb, was offering for his company was not high enough.
A year of claims, counter-claims, offers, rebuffs and haggling ensued, leading to a higher offer that was eventually accepted by the Blue Circle board. However, as Lafarge was a Euro-denominated company and Blue Circle was resolutely British (and was thinking in UK pounds sterling) after exchange rate variations had been taken into account, Lafarge paid less after a year than it had offered in he first place. The British CEO got a big pay-off and went on to greater glory, having appeared to extract a great deal more money (in GB pounds) for his shareholders. Apparently they teach this as a case study in business schools.
Mega-mergers have also shaped other giants in the industry. For example Chichibu-Onoda and Sumitomo-Osaka came together to make Taiheiyo Cement and Ciments Français was added to Italcimenti, although in this last case they still retain their separate identities. Often the deals amount to an accretive takeover by one larger company of a smaller one, but transformative deals consisting of a 'merger' of 'equals' also happen in the cement industry, and with good reason. The merging of research efforts; the optimisation of management; the rationalisation of procurement strategies: all of these will immediately save plenty of money.
However, it's on the financial side that these larger merged companies can sometimes see the most benefit. The cost of borrowing money is inversely proportional to the size of the company (and of the sums involved); the colossal sums demanded by overpaid and greedy bankers will diminish in proportion if the sums involved are larger. So, the cost of borrowing money to be able to invest in takeovers or for capital expenditure will reduce as a proportion of overall cost.
There are other significant potential savings as well, from operational synergies, although these can be harder to quantify and - critically - harder to retain once the competition technocrats have run their slide rules over the proposed deal. They generally do not like too much of the market ending in the hands of too few players.
A good case in point is the recent mega of Tarmac and Lafarge in the UK. To allow the deal to take place the merged company was obliged to sell off one of its key assets, the Hope cement plant, which is now owned and operated by newcomer Hope Construction Materials. Even after the deal has been completed, the market regulator is considering the possibility of making the merged company sell additional facilities, something that strikes Global Cement as 'just not on.'
However, with operations in 90 countries, Lafarge and Holcim can expect to face competition scrutiny in at least 15 countries including Brazil, Canada, Ecuador, France, the UK, the US, Morocco and the Philippines. Meanwhile, in Serbia it has been reported the two companies have a combined market share of 97% across all their business lines!
Lafarge and Holcim have overlapping facilities and distribution networks in a number of countries, and any merged company will probably be required to sell some of them to its competitors. Other companies might be licking their lips at the prospect, as usual CRH is already being lined up in the Irish press, but the units will be sold at a market rate - and not a penny less. It might be that the merged company cannot control which facilities are sold, meaning that they might end up with a less than optimised system. Not so good after all.
If the deal goes through, it will create a Europe-based behemoth with a production capacity of over 200Mt, enough to retain a place on the global top 10 companies with the ever-rationalising and concatenating Chinese companies. When the news first broke we asked what might the new company called? We liked a short mash-up of the two names, like Lolcim (a humorous nod to today's 'youth-speak' perhaps) or Hafarge. However, the level of preparation backing the merger plan soon became clear from financial due-diligence right down to a new name: LafargeHolcim.
Yet for all this co-ordinated work from companies that were meant to be competitors until as recently as March 2014, we should remember what happened to the proposed BHP Billiton-Rio Tinto takeover. Valued at a high of US$170bn it shrivelled up as the global economy collapsed in 2008 amidst concerns from regulators. The idea may be out there but LafargeHolcim has a long way to go before it actually exists.